Standing Committee G

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Clause 102 - Statutory nuisance: lighting

Amendment moved [27 January]: No. 57, in clause 102, page 75, line 2, after 'premises', insert 
'or streetlights on public roads or public rights of way'. 
_[Miss McIntosh]

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 58, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert— 
'(j) premises or apparatus used for the provision of electronic communication services.'. 
No. 104, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert— 
'(k) a playing field, playing pitch or other outdoor facility used wholly or mainly for sport.'. 
No. 117, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert, 
'; that is necessary to meet statutory requirements relating to national security or public safety, provided that reasonable and practicable steps have been taken to minimise light emissions to the minimum necessary to meet those requirements.'. 
No. 105, in clause 102, page 75, line 37, at end insert— 
'''playing field'' has the meaning given in Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996;''playing pitch'' means a delineated area which, together with any run-off area, is 0.4 hectares or more, and which is used for sport;'. 
No. 106, in clause 102, page 75, line 49, at end insert— 
'''sport'' is designated as any sporting activity which appears on the list maintained by the National Sports Councils of activities recognised by them, as applicable to Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002;'.

Anne McIntosh: May I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Forth.
On Thursday the Minister made what he was hoping would be a helpful intervention, which gives me the opportunity to respond in like manner. There is some concern about how the original clause will be amended. The Minister said: 
 ''It is merely that a local authority would be able to treat as a statutory nuisance those particular cases that qualify as a common law nuisance or are prejudicial to health.'' [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 January 2005; c. 314.] 
He will be aware that there is concern that under subsection (4) there are some extensive, wide exceptions to that form of statutory nuisance that many would like brought within the remit of the clause, including in airports, harbours, railways and transport facilities generally. He may also be aware that another form of statutory nuisance—general  farming practices—is causing great concern. A typical example of that would include, in the view of the National Farmers Union, situations in which a local authority deems that a nuisance is being caused by agricultural activities or farm buildings near a residential area. A case in point would be harvesting at night in good weather in July and August, which are the most intensive times of the year for arable farmers, when they often have a very small window of opportunity. There are a number of instances of statutory nuisance that could fall within the original clause. 
In amendments Nos. 104 and 105, we seek to address the matter of an all-weather, all-year-round pitch that is heavily dependent—[Interruption.]

Alun Michael: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because I was waiting for her to come to the next sentence of the paragraph in Hansard from which she quoted. I said:
 ''I ask her not to suggest that the clause would have an impact on sports facilities—generally, it would not.'' [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 January 2005; c. 314.] 
That was specific.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for that. I read that and heard it on the day, and now I hear again what the Minister says. However, the Government, perhaps inadvertently, have set up a hornet's nest and the air is buzzing with concern. In my area, we are fortunate enough to have a limited number of all-weather pitches and sports facilities. In a rural area where transport facilities are not that great and public transport is not as widely available as in urban areas, we are even more dependent on local community football and sports facilities.
I know about and support the Government's campaign to promote fitness and fight rising levels of obesity. The Minister must be aware that approximately 7 million adults and 5 million children participate weekly in football alone. That is not just limited to Sunday morning football. In fact, week-night five-a-side football is growing rapidly as a form of exercise for a vast number of people and that facility may inadvertently be limited by the drift of the clause.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady says that the air is buzzing with concern. It would be more accurate to say that it is buzzing with misinformation. I have made sure that officials have spoken to organisations such as the Football Association to make sure that they understand that those concerns are misplaced. I hope that she will not add to the mischief and concern by misrepresenting the situation and the impact of the clause.

Anne McIntosh: I put it to the Minister that his Department did not consult the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union, the Lawn Tennis Association or other relevant trade associations, or the Central Council of Physical Recreation when formulating and drafting this Bill.

Paddy Tipping: Will the hon. Lady check her facts? My understanding is that the Department met the FA just last week, and the meeting was satisfactory. The issues were explored, and reassurances were given.

Anne McIntosh: That makes my point; if the Department met the FA for the first time last week, even though the Bill is in its Committee stage, that speaks for itself.

Alun Michael: No, it does not speak for itself. I do wish that the hon. Lady would stop misrepresenting the situation—inadvertently, I am sure. The fact is that the FA wrote a letter to Members of Parliament, and I immediately acted to make sure that officials met the FA to correct the misapprehensions. I offered to meet the FA personally, should it have any concerns following that meeting. Of course, we consulted the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Sport England on the measures. The reason why the concerns have not been addressed in meetings is that the bodies will not be affected in the way that the hon. Lady suggests.

Anne McIntosh: If the Minister is going down that path, can he give the Committee a categoric assurance that the clause will not be interpreted by local authorities or the courts as applying to sports facilities and playing fields? In the spirit of good intentions and co-operation, will the Minister see fit to support amendments Nos. 104 and 105, and will he write into the Bill something to say that such sports facilities and playing fields will not be damaged and affected in the way that they fear? All the bodies to which I referred sought early consultation with the Minister. Perhaps this misunderstanding, as he calls it, would not have arisen if that consultation had taken place at the earliest possible stage.
What possible reason could there be for not writing such an assurance into the Bill? Why rely on departmental guidance that has no statutory basis, is not enforceable and may well lead to an interventionist local authority or housing association targeting sports facilities under the provisions, even though the Minister says that that is not his Department's intention? Surely this is exactly the role that primary legislation should play. It may be for your convenience and that of the Committee, Mr. Forth, if I say now that I wish to press amendments Nos. 104 and 105 to the vote.

Sue Doughty: Will you advise me, Mr. Forth? Are we dealing with amendment No. 57 or the whole string of amendments?

Eric Forth: We are dealing with the group.

Sue Doughty: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Forth.
Certainly, we support anything that would mitigate a new source of street lighting, which is an enormous cause of nuisance. It pollutes the night sky and creates red glow. Increasingly, good design is reducing that problem. 
I referred on Second Reading to my visit to Gatwick airport, which has started to consider the light that it emits. That was a very positive experience because, although in areas such as car parks adequate lighting was needed for people's safety, there was no need for 500,000 neon bulbs across the whole of the airport. Phasing those out and bringing in renewable energy that gave out softer lighting and reduced light pollution was extremely welcome. 
We have real problems with light pollution. The National Society for Clean Air and the Campaign to Protect Rural England both support measures to ensure that the places exempted still have to make a reasonable effort to limit light pollution. We need the energy efficiency; a ridiculous amount of energy is burned up by excessive lighting. Artificial lighting is a nuisance, and that needs to be said. However, we ought to make sure that when a statutory undertaking emits a large amount of light, there are codes of practice that it has to adhere to. The list of exemptions could have the perverse effect of implying that the issue does not matter for organisations such as airports or ports and that they can emit however much light they like. The Minister is shaking his head; I look forward to hearing his argument. 
We welcome the measures being taken by the Government on light pollution, because it is such a nuisance. We are losing our night skies. In some ways, there do not seem to be the same grounds for exemption for organisations such as airports and ports; they do not have to conform as ordinary citizens have to in managing what they do. 
During the Second Reading debate, we talked about freight depots and ports. Poole ferry terminal is visible from 30 miles out into the English channel; the light can even be seen from below the horizon. Why is that necessary? There are areas in which there are considerations of national security and public safety, and they are legitimate concerns. People recognise that security is of paramount importance. However, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been asking how we can work with the Government. The Campaign for Dark Skies says that we need to recognise that light pollution is taking place. 
The clause is important. What would happen in the case of existing sites—trading estates, for example? I used to live near a mini trading estate, with a wood yard and a couple of other things, that was dark at night. This week I have suddenly found that there is a  Renault garage close to my home. It blares light across an area of semi-rural countryside that formerly did not even have street lights. What will happen to existing legislation? Will the Bill give more opportunity for councils to take note of residents' complaints? The residents understood that the Renault garage was coming, but not that there would be a ridiculous amount of light through the evening and from midnight until dawn.

Alun Michael: It is clear that, yet again, I have to steer a careful course between Scylla and Charybdis—I refer to the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Guildford (Sue Doughty). Between them, they ask me to do more and less. Both requests are, as I hope to persuade the Committee, based on misapprehensions. The exceptions in clause 102(4) refer specifically to areas where safety is a paramount priority for transport, and where movement and safety are at a premium. The two other examples in the list are lighthouses and prisons, and I am sure that the safety considerations necessary for them are obvious to all. We do not want the Bill to be used in such circumstances; the Bill has a very clear focus on local circumstances. The hon. Member for Guildford referred to existing legislation. I will come to that in a moment, because there is a need to consider the interface between the proposals before us and the existing legislation. It may be helpful if I start by setting out the scope of this measure—what it does and does not do.
The clause does not provide local authorities with new general powers to control artificial lighting. Rather, local authorities will be given the ability to treat as a statutory nuisance particular instances of artificial lighting that qualify as a common law nuisance or are prejudicial to health. These terms have been used for many years, and there is extensive case law on their meaning. The need to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of individuals who are adversely affected by an activity and the need to carry on that activity is integral to the law on statutory nuisance. For artificial lighting, local authorities will need to balance the nuisance caused by particular lights against the need for adequate lighting on, for example, security or safety grounds. 
The law on statutory nuisance also contains a specific defence of having used ''best practical means''—I shall refer back to those three words—to prevent or suppress the effects of certain statutory nuisances, particularly those arising on trade, business and industrial premises. Clause 103 deals with the availability of this defence for both artificial lighting and nuisance insects. This provision, in effect, permits an activity that might be otherwise be unreasonable to continue where those who are responsible for it have used the best means available to them to prevent it, or to reduce its impact.

Paddy Tipping: In the case of floodlit sports facilities, is my hon. Friend telling us that if the sports club is using the ''best practical means'' and the latest  technology, then there is no threat whatever? Will he repeat his assurance that he is prepared to meet the FA, and make the position absolutely clear to them? I am sure that there is some mischief-making going on here.

Alun Michael: I share my hon. Friend's concern. I was coming to the situation of sports facilities, which is precisely as he has set out. In the light of these points, I do not think that this clause poses any threat to the floodlighting of sports facilities, and in my view amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106 are unnecessary.
I have indicated, both last week and again today, that I am aware of the Football Association's concerns on this point. My officials had a useful meeting with the FA last week. The FA said that they were most concerned about the effect restrictions on artificial lighting might have on the provision of new floodlit facilities. The planning process for such facilities, however, already takes full account of the impact of artificial lighting, and enabling local authorities to treat artificial lighting as a statutory nuisance will have no implications for the planning process for new facilities. 
Let me underline once more the fact that passing this Bill in its current form, which will enable local authorities to treat artificial lighting as a statutory nuisance, will have no implications for the planning processes for new facilities. 
While there is a theoretical possibility that a local authority might try to challenge existing floodlighting on the basis that it was a statutory nuisance, in reality this would be highly unlikely. There is a strong public interest in encouraging community football and sports facilities, and any adverse effects of floodlighting on individuals living near a sports ground will need to be balanced against the interests of all those who use that ground. That is already the situation. In most, if not all, cases I would expect the provider of the floodlighting to be able to make use of the ''best practical means'' defence. It is difficult to envisage that those operating a sports ground would deliberately, for example, aim their floodlights at a particular row of properties. That would be the sort of perversity that anybody would want to see dealt with firmly. 
In any event, we will make it clear in the guidance that we do not expect floodlit playing fields and other sports facilities to fall foul of the provision in practice.

Paddy Tipping: Is my right hon. Friend willing to discuss the practice guidance with interested bodies? Will he ask his officials to do that?

Alun Michael: Yes, I can give a cast-iron assurance on that point. I have already said that guidance will be a matter for consultation, but we do not see any problem with it. The target is not that perceived by the hon. Member for Vale of York. There might be occasions when badly sited lights cause unnecessary  hardship to those in the vicinity, but in such cases we would expect the problem to be resolved through discussion between the local authority and those responsible for the lighting.
As for new facilities, I was talking to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism last week, before we received the letter from the FA. He referred to the way in which technology has moved on. It allows much better targeting of light in new facilities, so that there is not much impact on those in the area and the best possible quality of lighting is provided for those who take part in sporting activities. 
For many years before entering Parliament, I spent much time as a youth worker and a councillor, improving and increasing the facilities available in my area, so I am not without knowledge of the discussions that are necessary to provide such facilities. More generally, the guidance will make it clear that the provisions on artificial lighting should be introduced in a reasonable and proportionate way and that every effort must be made to resolve problems by negotiation, with enforcement action taken only as a last resort. 
Many of the same arguments apply to amendment No. 58. Like many other industrial facilities, premises or apparatus used for the provision of electronic communication services clearly need adequate lighting for operation and security purposes. The law on statutory nuisance recognised the need for industry to be able to carry out its usual functions, and that is further protected by the defence of ''best practical means''. I shall return to those three important words. For those reasons, it is not necessary to single out communication services for particular protection. 
Amendment No. 57, which would extend the provision to apply public nuisance legislation specifically to street lights on public highways, is in a different category. Local authorities are responsible for street lighting and for applying the law on statutory nuisance. Rather than giving local authorities the theoretical ability to issue abatement notices on themselves, it is better to deal with light pollution from street lighting by other means. Modern lighting design can already provide street lighting that does not waste energy and directs light only where it is wanted. That is used increasingly when lighting is replaced and is common for new lighting schemes. 
The Government made £300 million available in private finance initiative credits in 2003-04 to help local authorities in England—those outside London—to modernise their street lighting. In London, a further £85 million in PFI credits will be available for street lighting over the next three years. That is additional to support provided through the revenue support grant. 
Amendment No. 117 would create ambiguity, which would complicate the provision. For example, what is the minimum amount of light necessary to meet statutory requirements? Most of the exemptions are  for transport facilities and are necessary because we need to put it beyond doubt or further qualification that artificial lighting used at the premises does not qualify as statutory nuisance. Moving vehicles represent a danger to health and safety. Movements are often complex in the sort of facilities referred to under the clause, and lighting outside and at night must be used. Ports and airports have international obligations that require the provision of adequate lighting for safety and security. Moreover, transport tends to operate at all hours and requires essential maintenance at night to ensure that vehicles and the infrastructure are operational during the day. 
I appreciate some of the points made by the hon. Member for Guildford about the way in which some transport facilities operate, but those matters are best dealt with elsewhere rather than in the neighbourhood considerations under the Bill.

Sue Doughty: I am listening carefully to the Minister. He said that such matters are best dealt with elsewhere. How does he suggest they can be dealt with?

Alun Michael: I was about to make the point anticipated by the hon. Lady. The exemptions mean that, for transport facilities, the status quo will apply. Although they will not be subject to the statutory nuisance regime, and so subject to regulation by local authorities under this heading, it will not prevent individuals from taking private nuisance actions in cases in which they feel that artificial lighting is causing them a severe problem. A private action can, for example, be taken by a person whose land adjoins a transport facility from which artificial lighting is
''unduly interfering with that person's comfortable or convenient enjoyment of his own land.'' 
We often legislate in respect of transport facilities—such as the arrangements that are dealt with in the exceptions—but it is not appropriate to go into the complexities of the arrangements for ports, airports and other transport facilities in this Bill. That is why the measure, which is intended to deal with the local nuisance that was strongly highlighted by our consultation, should be appropriately targeted. The guidance will make the application clear. 
In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of York, sometimes it is not appropriate for things to be clarified in the Bill because of the law of unintended consequences. The exceptions that are listed are clear and comprehensive. That is the correct way in which to deal with the matter in the Bill, and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I heard the Minister's response with great interest. One issue that we did not discuss, and which might have to be covered at a later stage, is that of nuisance lighting from Christmas tree decorations. That can lead to the very type of vexatious and malicious complaint to which the Minister referred. The official Opposition do not think that it is good enough simply to say that the issue is best dealt with by other means or elsewhere. It is right and proper to state in the Bill exactly how the provisions will apply to utility companies such as British Telecom, to railways and to individuals who might feel that they have cause  for complaint. For all that I am a non-practising advocate, I believe that it is much better for all concerned that the Bill speak for itself. As little as possible should be left to interpretation and guidance.
The Minister is moving in the right direction, but it is not satisfactory that he is leaving the matter to guidance, given that, regrettably, there was not the early and lengthy consultation that many of us would have liked. At a later stage, we will seek clarification on agricultural and horticultural practices. I think that the Minister will agree that they have not been subject to a plethora of complaints. Bearing in mind that we have seen so much success as a result of grants from the Football Foundation—areas such as Poppleton in Vale of York have benefited from football pitches and in other ways—it is incumbent on the Committee to make the Bill as clear as possible.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady strays into new territory when she refers to Christmas decorations. Perhaps I ought to respond briefly to that point, because it is important to understand the way in which that would be dealt with. If the local authority is satisfied that a statutory light nuisance exists, it will have to issue an abatement order. That will require that nuisance to be abated, prohibited or restricted, and can require that works and steps be undertaken to achieve those ends within a time scale. Christmas lights could be covered in that way, although it is unlikely given their temporary nature.
Again, it is a question of striking a balance between enjoyment given and nuisance created. As in many such instances, judgment has to be used if we are to succeed in protecting the public against a genuine nuisance while avoiding excessive restrictions. That is what is meant by the best possible means. That point also applies to agricultural and horticultural activities: are they undertaken in a way that ignores the interests of those affected—are those responsible being cavalier about the impact on others or even deliberate in those actions—or are the best possible means being used? If it is the latter, agricultural and horticultural activities will be able to continue without impact from this or previous legislation.

Sue Doughty: Referring back to our amendment and having listened to the Minister, I seek some clarity. We have no disagreement about the need for safety on industrial and commercial premises and in transport and so on, or about the fact that such places operate 24 hours a day. He referred to the opportunity to take a private action, but with a large installation such as an airport or a ferry terminal, the nuisance may be the totality of the light from sites such as Poole ferry terminal, which has been mentioned.
The cause of the problem can be lights on tall columns, which should be directed more to the area that they are supposed to illuminate but in fact cast light unnecessarily far and wide. Of course one wants safety—that is not disputed—but some areas in a airport, such as sheds, do not need large amounts of light. I have already mentioned car parks. We have  some voluntary agreements, but I am still concerned about how we mitigate the unnecessary light coming from those installations. Although I am minded not to press the amendment, I would do so only following some reassurance from the Minister that everything possible is being done to minimise the pollution from those large installations.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady puts her point reasonably, but in a way she also answers it. As she says, big transport installations such as ports and airports are not just about the direct light nuisance but about the volume of the activity. However, as she also said—I think that this is another point of agreement—the economic value of those activities, their importance to the infrastructure of the nation and the safety considerations that she acknowledged mean that they are not the intended target in a Bill that concerns local neighbourhood nuisance and the direct impact that I spoke of earlier.
There are issues to be addressed; she is right about that. It is one of the Government's concerns to see technical improvements and the minimisation of the impact of large installations, but that is way beyond what it is possible for us to deal with in this Bill. In the spirit in which the hon. Lady made her comments, I acknowledge that there are issues to be dealt with, but her amendment is not the way to address them. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Amendment proposed: No. 104, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert— 
'(k) a playing field, playing pitch or other outdoor facility used wholly or mainly for sport.'.—[Miss McIntosh.] 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 105, in clause 102, page 75, line 37, at end insert— 
'''playing field'' has the meaning given in Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996;''playing pitch'' means a delineated area which, together with any run-off area, is 0.4 hectares or more, and which is used for sport;'.—[Miss McIntosh.] 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question agreed to. 
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 - Contaminated land: appeals against remediation notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: We are told that the clause is intended to improve the process of contaminated land appeals. Under section 78L of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 1995, appeals against remediation notices under the contaminated land regime are heard by magistrates, except for special sites for which appeals are heard by the Secretary of State. This measure will effectively amend section 78L so that appeals will be made to the Secretary of State, bringing the regime more in line with other environmental regimes.
I seek clarification on a number of issues. I understand that in the original ''Clean Neighbourhoods'' consultation, although respondents were mostly supportive of the measure, a number of them objected. Most of those objecting took the view that appeals were best taken by local magistrates, and that centralising the appeals procedure could slow down the process. There were also concerns about  moving decision making away from the local level, as it is generally recognised that local magistrates have a better understanding of local situations.

Alun Michael: May I assist the hon. Lady? My reaction on first reading this proposition was similar to hers. However, I then discovered that there has only ever been one appeal. Therefore, the expertise of local magistrates would be rather limited in this area of activity.

Anne McIntosh: That is most helpful. We would not wish to open the floodgates for further appeals. I seek clarification of why the Minister thinks that the Secretary of State would be better placed. The history of the contaminated land and the remediation order would be better known to local people and the local magistrates. Only where a notice had been served by a local authority under section 78L of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—a good Act, which I commend to the Minister's Department—are appeals heard by inspectors appointed for that purpose. Those inspectors make the decision or send the case to the Secretary of State to decide upon.
Presumably the inspectors will by definition not be local and will be drafted in for their expertise in the subject matter rather than the local area. Given the number of sites that may be used for alternative purposes in future, the problem will become an increasing issue. 
I am interested to know what representations were made during consultation and what regard the Minister has paid to those representations. 
The Minister said that there had been only one appeal to date under section 78L of the 1990 Act. What is the level of appeal to the Secretary of State in matters to which the new procedure already applies? 
How will the inspectors be qualified and trained? Is there a ready pool available, or will the inspectors be newly created? If so, will that impose an additional burden of cost, presumably to borne by the Department rather than local authorities, and will it lead to more bureaucratic procedures? At the moment there is a straightforward recourse to the magistrates court. If every owner of contaminated land appeals to the Secretary of State, how long will it take for those appeals to be heard and for the land to be cleaned up? We are particularly wedded to the 1990 Act, as it was passed on our watch and we believe that it has served extremely well. 
How does the clause relate to the duty of care under earlier provisions in the Bill, particularly those in which the Government have requested that the duty of care should be actively promoted in the business community and that there should be a general recognition, albeit quite low, of what that duty is? 
Subsection (7) relates to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. Will there be a separate pool of inspectors to cover Wales or will one pool cover England and Wales? What is the situation in Scotland? It would be nice to think that the provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland were broadly similar to those in England and Wales.

Mark Simmonds: I have one specific question for the Minister. If the appeals procedure is used so minimally—indeed, only once, as the Minister said—why does the current system of appeal to the magistrates court need to be changed to bring in the Secretary of State?

Alun Michael: I should like to say, not on the basis of prejudice but on the basis of my practical experience as a magistrate over many years and as chair of a city's planning committee, that my natural instinct is to let the magistrates get on with things and keep the planning inspectorate out of them. I can assure the hon. Lady that the clause has been scrutinised from that standpoint.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) asked a specific question, which perhaps I can answer. We believe that there are likely to be more appeals in the future, but still not many. This is a backstop provision, as I will explain in my response. It is sensible for the backstop provision to be the same for appeals against a decision by the Environment Agency as by a local authority. A degree of consistency is introduced to the arrangements. 
At the moment, provision is for appeals to go either to the magistrates or to the Secretary of State, depending on which regulator serves the notice—the Environment Agency to the Secretary of State, the local authority to the magistrates. What we are proposing is that the cases all go to the Secretary of State, which is more appropriate given their complex legal and technical nature. That should allow for consistency in decision making. The rarity of the cases makes it more appropriate for the Secretary of State and, normally, an inspector to deal with these issues. 
As a general point, where there is a remediation notice, the owners of land are often keen quickly to deal with the remediation so that there is no blight on the land and they can get on with whatever development they envisaged. Again, therefore, the appeal process will not be needed in many circumstances, but, for a small minority, needs to be there. 
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about the National Assembly for Wales. The National Assembly is able to draw on the same pool of expertise that is available to the Secretary of State in dealing with appeals across England and Wales. That expertise crosses a variety of recent legislation. 
The clause removes the inconsistency of having two avenues of appeal, for remediation notices under part 2A, where they are served by the local authority or by the Environment Agency. 
Appeals are so unusual and technical that magistrates would simply not build up a sufficient body of expertise. From my own experience, magistrates quickly develop an expertise, for instance in road traffic offences. In some circumstances, magistrates get specific training to deal with, say, children's issues, young offenders or licensing issues. When appeals are such a rarity, there is frankly nobody on the bench who is going to have the expertise to deal with the issues consistently. I think that the case, against my normal instincts, has been made. 
As I indicated, there has only been one remediation notice appeal to the courts and none to the Secretary of State. As authorities progressively identify sites needing action—the emphasis on the use of brownfield sites may assist the process—there may be more appeals. However, they are still likely to be infrequent. Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is designed to encourage remediation through agreement and negotiation—a strong point in its favour—without needing formally to enforce action. Of 70 cases of contaminated land identified up to October 2004, only three required a remediation notice; 25 instead resulted in a remediation statement setting out the agreed approach.

Mark Simmonds: The Minister mentioned a couple of times that he anticipates an increase in the number of appeals once this clause is operable. Has the Department assessed how many appeals there might be? Has there been any discussion of increased resource allocation? The Minister is right to insist that speed is important, so that such land is not blighted.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in one aspect. I am suggesting not that the clause will result in an increase in the number of cases or appeals, but that the increased pressure on local authorities to use brownfield sites may lead to more concerns about the need for remediation and therefore orders and appeals. That may not even happen. The one case may continue to be the unique experience, but I am sure that all members of the Committee agree that sites that have been used for other purposes in the past should be recycled, rather than new land being taken up. I was referring to that pressure as possibly leading to a minimal increase in appeals, but we are convinced—obviously, this has been discussed with the inspectorate—that the capacity and the will exists to deal with appeals as quickly as possible.
I hope that it is not necessary for me to go through the details of the one case that went to appeal, because it can hardly be regarded as typical when it is unique. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will be happy to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I heard with great interest what the Minister said. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness highlighted a significant factor, which I referred to in my introductory remarks on the clause. We are told on page 69 of the Department's regulatory impact assessment that there will be a cost transfer from magistrates courts to the relevant Department. However, the Minister has not informed us of what the costs will be—whether they will be significant—or of how long it will take to hear a case.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady might like some information on the complexity of the site that was subject to an appeal, but I shall write to her, rather than running through it now. The case was about remediation in relation to the production of gases and so on, and it shows the highly technical nature of a situation in which a dispute is likely to arise.
The transfer of resources will be minimal. That is normally dealt with by technical experts in the two Departments affected. As far as I am aware, there is no controversy over ensuring that a transfer is achieved. 
I share the hon. Lady's view that we should seek a brisker approach to decision making on the part of the inspectorate. Indeed, the Government and the inspectorate have sought to improve matters. As I said at the beginning, my instinct is to leave things to the magistrate, but it is not sensible to leave the current set of circumstances in place. Consistency, so that both regulators—the local authority and the Environment Agency—are dealt with in the same way, is the best way forward. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Offences relating to pollution etc: penalties on conviction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to query the basis for the change in this regard. When will the provisions of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 come into effect in full? Are they in application now, or are they due to come into effect at a later date? We would prefer most of the provisions to have been agreed in the Bill rather than for regulations to be made ''under section 2''.
On the annotated version of the 1999 Act, the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recorded its view. It said that 
''the Committee would not wish this bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future. It remains important that the purposes and ambit of legislation, together with any important governing criteria, should be clearly specified within the primary legislation and not simply left to the exercise of delegated powers.'' 
How narrow will the regulations be drafted under subsection (1)? When will the provisions of the 1999 Act come into effect in full? Am I right in understanding that the maximum fine will be increased  from £20,000 to £50,000? Is that also admitting for a first offence, where it might be less? Will there be a scale? How does the Minister imagine subsection (1)(b) will be interpreted?

Alun Michael: The provisions are already in force; the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 have been agreed by the processes of the House.
I am not certain that I correctly understand the hon. Lady's point. The reference to regulations is a reference to the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and makes it clear to which provisions the increase of penalties applies and does not apply. I think that that is straightforward, but if I have misunderstood and there is a more complicated technical point to which she seeks an answer, I will be happy to follow it up with her after the sitting. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Minor and consequential amendments

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I seek guidance from the Minister about how the provisions relating to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, specifically those on graffiti and fly-posting, will be interpreted.
 It might be opportune to inform the Committee that it would appear that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of fly-posting and do not wish such posters to be removed. According to a ''Focus'' leaflet that was recently circulated in Romsey, they think it is terrible that fly-posters that are illegally advertising charitable events should be torn down. It said: 
 ''All of these would be torn down''. 
It invites support and seems to be a classic case of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one part of the country and something different in another.

Sue Doughty: I find it slightly rich that those on the Conservative Benches, where there is opposition to the whole Bill, feel able to make any comment about those who support it.

Anne McIntosh: It gets better, because I can quote from the ''Focus'' leaflet. It said:
 ''We know that strictly speaking it is illegal, but we believe that most signs are temporary and do not obstruct the pavement or highway and provide a valuable community service. Tell us what you think, send back the slip.'' 
That brought a rare smile to the Minister's face. We will pursue the matter.

Sue Doughty: The hon. Lady has dealt with the issue by saying that the leaflet was inviting opinion. It said:
 ''Tell us what you think''.
It did not say, ''Do it right or wrong''. It invited opinion and, coming from a party that likes to consult people, I think that that is a reasonable question.

Eric Forth: Order. I am now going to tell the Committee what I think, and that is that we should move on briskly to consider schedule 4.

Anne McIntosh: A rare moment of agreement between the Government and the official Opposition has occurred.
Might I draw the Minister's attention to concerns that were raised, particularly by Network Rail, about the Government's guidance on the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 with regard to fly posting and graffiti? It was clear and was welcomed by both parties. Network Rail is particularly concerned that that guidance, with the amendments that the Minister is seeking to introduce in paragraphs 12 to 19 of schedule 4 and the regulations that were referred to in other parts of the Bill, might detract from the very clear guidance that has been given in other regards. It affects not only Network Rail; we have had representations from London Underground, Metronet and other transport operators. 
Paragraph 14 states that a fixed penalty will apply. As was mentioned earlier, graffiti is often no sooner removed than it is replaced. It is an ongoing activity that all transport operators take extremely seriously. I am sure that it does not apply to trains alone; buses in London and other urban centres can have great difficulties as well. Will the Minister take the opportunity to explain how the guidance issued under the 2003 Act sits, and will he confirm that this schedule will not contradict it? 
Can the Minister clarify how he expects new subsection (4A) inserted by paragraph 3, which concerns the imposition on waste disposal authorities of a duty to make payments, to operate? What burdens will it place on the waste disposal authorities and what representation and expressions of concern has he received from those authorities in that regard? 
Paragraph 4 refers to a waste disposal contractor. The Minister will be aware that there have been successful moves, particularly by unitary authorities such as City of York, but also jointly, for example with Yorkshire county council, to contract out to a waste disposal company. Those arrangements are not uniform across the country. There are provisions in the Bill that would make it impossible to contract out to tender—I think that the Government wish to keep that within local authority control. I hope that, where there have been positive developments, the Government will not seek to eradicate them. They have been to the benefit of taxpayers as well as of local authorities. With these short remarks, I invite the Minister to clarify the issue.

Alun Michael: May I make something clear? The hon. Lady seemed take comfort in my quiet smile of appreciation as I listened to the exchanges between her and the hon. Member for Guildford as though my smile somehow indicated agreement between  Government and Opposition. It was more a result of my observation of the private grief between the Opposition parties. It was also a result of my amusement, because it is clear that both hon. Ladies and, indeed, their parties should be paid-up members of opportunists anonymous.
The hon. Lady made a series of detailed points, which relate back to the clauses and to the principles that we have sought to apply. For instance, on the removal of the obligation to contract out local authority services, we are seeking to remove a specific requirement so that authorities can achieve best value. We are seeking a more flexible arrangement that allows them to target their activities and ensure that they get the best value from their council tax payers' money. The consequentials do not take us back to that principle, which is very clear and which I outlined when we dealt with the earlier clauses. 
Essentially, as the heading suggests, these are minor and consequential amendments; they do not raise points of principle. Their purpose is to ensure that legislation is consistent and that any changes that the Bill introduces are consistent with the generality of the law. I do not believe that there is a problem with the guidance under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, but I shall certainly look at the issue in the light of the hon. Lady's comments—especially if she wants to raise specific points, rather than make a general plea that we achieve consistency, which we would, of course, seek to do. 
On the hon. Lady's point about graffiti, there is always a problem where there is an inclination for the activity to be repeated as soon as cleaning has taken place. Again, however, the broken windows theory applies: quick action to deal with the nuisance and protect the environment helps to eradicate the activity and reduce the likelihood of it being repeated. However, it is also important to have proper penalties in place. In that way, there will be both a carrot and a stick—environmental improvement and, where appropriate, prosecution and punishment. 
These are minor and consequential amendments, which play their role in implementing the principles that we debated at length in relation to what I might call the parent clauses.

Anne McIntosh: It may help if I write to the Minister on the issue, because it is quite substantial. I have pages and pages from, among others, Network Rail, which believes that the costs and the time involved in implementing the schedule and the earlier provisions will be substantial.

Alun Michael: I would be happy to have some bedtime reading of the sort that the hon. Lady describes and to respond to her after the Committee if that would help.

Anne McIntosh: It would be very beneficial if I could take up the Minister's kind offer, although I do not want to come between him and his sleep. That shows that he has been listening and is aware of these concerns. If I write to him in detail and he feels that  something merits consideration on Report, perhaps the Government, rather than the Opposition, could introduce a proposal.

Alun Michael: Obviously, I could not commit myself without having seen the points that the hon. Lady wants to raise, but I shall certainly take seriously anything that she sends to me.

Anne McIntosh: I hear what the Minister says, and I shall take up his kind offer.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 4 agreed to. 
Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Repeals

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This is a small point, but I notice from page 94 that the whole of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, and substantial sections of the Dogs Act 1906, the Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928 and the Local Government Act 1988 are to be repealed. I should be interested to know what discussions the Minister has had recently with the groups representing the interests of dogs and dog wardens to discuss the proposals to repeal the provisions. Those groups raised concerns about the extent of the repeals and would have appreciated having the Minister's ear at the earliest opportunity. Has he had a meeting with those groups, particularly the National Dog Warden Association, between the consultation paper being published and the Bill coming into Committee?

Alun Michael: I had a very satisfactory meeting with the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, which covered those considerations, to which I referred in Committee when we considered the relevant clauses of the Bill. I am not sure what point the hon. Lady is making. One or two other organisations have written in subsequently, probably as a result of publication of the views expressed to Members of Parliament by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. I have written to a few organisations giving them similar advice and assurances. As I said, we were able to respond positively to all the points raised by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, which will be dealt with in regulations and guidance rather than in the Bill.
We will come shortly to the one outstanding issue that those organisations were concerned about: the transfer of resources in order to transfer the arrangements and responsibilities between the police and the local authority 
I also referred in an earlier sitting to the only other meeting I have had: a discussion at the margins of a meeting about policing in Cardiff about how the police deal with stray animals, with particular reference to some of the complications that arise for the police in  satisfying the present requirements, which reinforce the sense of the changes we propose. I hope that my reply is sufficiently detailed for the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh: It is, indeed, helpful. The record will show that, regrettably, the Minister was not able to meet the National Dog Warden Association.

Alun Michael: I am not in the habit of meeting organisations that have not asked for a meeting unless there are clearly concerns such as those that arose on the matter we discussed earlier and were put in writing by the Football Association. I have had no request for a meeting from the National Dog Warden Association.

Anne McIntosh: My point is that the repeals of existing Acts under parts 5 and 6 are substantial and transfer not just resources but responsibilities from the police. The National Dog Warden Association will be charged with policing stray dogs following the repeals. The Minister might look favourably on a request to meet representatives of that association before Report.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 108 - Commencement

Alun Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in clause 108, page 78, line 43, at end insert—
'(da) section 68 and Part 6 of Schedule 5;'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 121, in clause 108, page 79, leave out line 22.

Alun Michael: I referred to the amendments a few minutes ago because they change the proposed commencement arrangements for clause 68 on stray dogs. Instead of coming into force two months after the adoption of the Bill, it will be commenced by order of the Secretary of State. The reason for the change is very simple: it is the assurance that I gave to the Committee.
When we discussed clause 68, I gave an assurance that sole responsibility for stray dogs would not be transferred to local authorities without an appropriate transfer of resources. I also indicated that discussions on the amount to be transferred are in progress. Although I do not expect there to be any problems or delays, it would be wise to cater for the remote possibility that they might occur. The amendments would enable us to ensure that local authorities do not take on sole responsibility for stray dogs until the necessary funding has been transferred. Commencement will be by order of the Secretary of State, rather than the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, because responsibility for police matters has not been devolved. In this case, the Secretary of State is the correct designation. I need not delay the Committee any longer. As the amendment delivers the assurance that I gave, I am sure that it will be commended on all sides.

Anne McIntosh: May I commend the Minister's openness and helpfulness? He gave the Committee an assurance, and responded to our real concerns that the transfer of resources would not take place. He was good enough to tell us that the discussions were ongoing. When he moved the amendments, I understood him to say that police matters had not been devolved. Can he clarify whether he means that they have not been devolved as of today, or that they are not being devolved under the provisions of the Bill?

Alun Michael: Police responsibilities are not being devolved. There are local authority responsibilities that lie with the Secretary of State in England, or with the National Assembly for Wales, and police responsibilities have not been devolved. That is why the commencement powers lie with the Secretary of State—in this case, the Home Secretary.

Anne McIntosh: That is very helpful. Without pressing him too far on the point, which is obviously pertinent to clause 109, can the Minister give an indication of what he thinks the pertinent start date under clause 68 will be? When does he believe that the Secretary of State will be able to bring forward orders in that regard?

Alun Michael: Very simply, those are conversations between two Departments—the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—to which I am not party. However, everybody agrees about the principle of transferring the responsibilities and therefore the resources. I do not expect a long delay. Perhaps the amendment that I moved this morning was not necessary, but it merely makes it certain that the undertaking that I gave earlier would apply, and that, if there were any delay, the provision would not automatically be enforced before the resources were available.
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 121, in clause 108, page 79, leave out line 22.—[Mr. Michael.] 
 Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109 - Money

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister referred to clause 68 and its transfer of resources. Throughout the Bill, there have been significant transfers of responsibility—albeit discretionary in most cases—raising real concerns about how local authorities and the Environment Agency, as appropriate, will be asked to implement their discretionary responsibilities under the Bill. We heard that the hypothecation—for want of a better term—of fixed penalty notices will help to defray some of the costs. We also know that this year, and presumably in subsequent years, if there were no change of Government at the general election, the  Government would continue to impose a 5 per cent. cap on any increase in local authority council tax charges in any one year.
Without going through them significantly, there are going to be substantial costs under each part of the provision. We heard from the Home Office at departmental questions yesterday that there is a minimum 30 per cent. non-payment rate of fixed penalty notices. 
There is a raft of new offences to which fixed penalty notices will apply: free literature, nuisance vehicles, noisy licensed premises, nomination of a key-holder to deal with audible intruder alarms and interfering notices. Penalty notices will be increased for some existing offences: abandoned vehicles, street litter control notices, the duty of care in relation to waste disposal, waste left out in the street and dog control offences. According to the Government's own projections, if 50 per cent. of fixed penalty notices were paid—if the name and address was given and they were paid on time—nationally it would yield £3,248,750. 
For the first year or two, that is quite a high return, but it does not take into account the cost of the planning inspectors whom the Department will have to employ and the training of officials to hand out fixed penalty notices and inform the public. I therefore have severe doubts about approving clause 109: the Government's sums do not add up. These tremendously costly provisions will hugely increase the burden on resources if each and every one of the responsibilities—albeit discretionary—provided under each part of the Bill are to be paid for. 
I do not believe that local authorities—Westminster city council at the top end or Hamilton district council or rural parish councils at the bottom end—will be in a position to apply the Bill's provisions. I therefore want to be satisfied that this money provision will allow for a transfer of resources not just for stray dogs but for the vexed question of abandoned vehicles. 
 A debate on hazardous waste will be held tomorrow in Westminster Hall that I am sure Committee members will wish to attend. Local authorities and the Environment Agency are being asked to apply a raft of EU directives independently of the Bill. With the greatest will in the world, I do not believe that local authorities will be able to meet the discretionary responsibilities in the Bill.

Alun Michael: We all knew before the hon. Lady made that curious speech that the Conservatives are against cleaning up the local environment and that they do not care what happens in rural areas. They do not even seem to know that several of the issues with which the Bill deals are of great concern in rural areas. I promise the hon. Lady that at every opportunity we will hang the Conservatives' reasoned amendment around the neck of her and her candidates in every part of the country.
The clause refers specifically to money needed to deal with the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Lady does not seem to have addressed the question of what she thinks should be substituted for the clause. Does she  think that expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Bill should be plucked out of thin air? Does she think that increases attributable to the Bill in the sums payable should not come out of 
''money so provided under any other Act''? 
Frankly, the hon. Lady makes a fool of herself by the attempt to turn this simple clause dealing with expenditure into a platform for an attack on the principles of the Bill itself. The Bill arises out of extensive consultation and has considerable support from local authorities across the country. It is clear why it has their support: in the long run it will save money, reduce bureaucracy and help local authorities to be more effective. It will help them and us to deliver the improved neighbourhoods that we all want to see in our constituencies. 
The hon. Lady again refers to Westminster city council, which seems to be the only source of local government information available to her. It is a rather curious choice since, judging by the correspondence, Westminster city council does not seem to be terribly concerned about any of the provisions, other than those on chewing gum, which it has misunderstood. I counsel her against accepting advice from the only quarter that seems to be available to her. 
I believe that town and parish councils are able to judge whether to use the provisions that enable them to improve the quality of the environment in their local area. Let us trust parish and town councils to work in co-operation with the principal authorities to implement the Bill's intentions: ensure that people can safely and securely enjoy cleaner, safer and greener neighbourhoods.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister is on weak ground. We have identified two areas—there are others—on which there has been insufficient or no consultation: the National Dog Warden Association and sports facilities. We have established that the dog interest groups were invited only when the Bill was in Committee.

Alun Michael: I invited them because it was clear when they wrote to MPs that they were under a considerable misapprehension about the terms of the Bill and its implications. I have reported on generously meeting the groups to remove those misapprehensions, so it is rather odd of the hon. Lady to say that I have not met everybody with whom—it is a limited group—she seems to have had some contact.

Eric Forth: Order. I do not think that we should revisit the issue of consultation—on whatever matter. We are discussing clause 109 stand part. The clause is specifically about money and the payment of money provided by Parliament.

Anne McIntosh: It is clear that no money will be provided by Parliament to enable the provisions of the Bill to be met. The Minister says that there were various misapprehensions. That was because there was no explanation of what the provisions would be. I yield to no one in our desire to want to clean up the environment. We have consistently been doing that. The Conservative record speaks for itself—18 years in  government. It was Mrs. Thatcher who first established that we were only custodians of the environment for future generations. It was the Conservative party that introduced the flagship Environmental Protection Act 1990, which this Government continue to tinker with.

Eric Forth: Order. I, in turn, yield to nobody in my admiration for Lady Thatcher, but I do not think that she should play any part in this Committee's deliberations—at least not today.

Anne McIntosh: I am also a huge admirer of what town and parish councils seek to achieve. They have onerous responsibilities, which this Government have imposed upon them. Indeed, my own parish council in the Vale of York has resigned en masse as a result, and I believe it is going to be placed in a very difficult situation. The Minister says that we should trust local authorities' judgment in implementing the Bill. Without the resources being made available by Parliament or transferred from other bodies as appropriate, they will simply be unable to do so.
We stand by our reasoned amendment, and will take every opportunity to waft it in the face of our parliamentary opponents at the forthcoming election, which may come sooner than we think. We shall be prepared for it.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I need a long response to that fresh Second Reading contribution, as the hon. Lady tries to rescue herself from her comments denigrating parish and town councils. I do need, however, to rebut the generality of her remarks.
The previous Conservative Government had an awful record on local government, and on giving local government the capacity to do its job. Many of us saw the suffering created at a local level by that Government. I am not going to make any comment about Mrs. Thatcher. I simply do not share the views either of the hon. Lady or any other member of this Committee who holds Mrs. Thatcher in such high regard. To each his or her views. The fact is that this good Bill will enable local authorities to work efficiently and effectively in partnership with central and local government—a partnership that we have been at pains to reconstruct after the damage of the locust years to which the hon. Lady referred. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 - Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No.1, in clause 111, page 80, line 3, leave out 'Clean Neighbourhoods and' and insert 'Cleaner and Safer'.
Many of us on this side of the Committee, and on other Benches in other quarters, represent areas where one could not point to a specific neighbourhood. That is reflected, in the crime protection field, for example, in the fact that we do not have just neighbourhood watches but farm watches as well. There are many rural areas where it is quite difficult to talk about neighbourhoods as such. In some parts of the Bill, the emphasis is perhaps too much on urban problems and does not sufficiently look at issues such as abandoned vehicles. These vehicles are not just left in residential areas—which can intensely irritating to the residents—but can be dumped in rural areas, quite illegally and without the knowledge or permission of the landowner or farmer. 
In this probing amendment, I seek an assurance from the Minister that it is not his intention to have a partial bias, throughout the main thrust of the provisions of this Bill, on urban areas—as the ''clean neighbourhoods'' title could suggest. ''Cleaner and Safer Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill'' is a step in the right direction, but perhaps the neatest of all would be the short, catchy title of the environment Bill. The Minister will be aware, however, through comments we have consistently made both on Second Reading and on closer scrutiny in Committee, that we are aware that there are particular problems with the farming community. We considered, for example, the situation of artificial lighting very briefly, and any malicious charges that could be made against farmers in that regard. We would like there to be a more comprehensive and joined-up approach in the Bill that recognises that the countryside is part of the wider environment and that farmers, landowners and country dwellers are custodians and should not be unnecessarily hounded by the Government. 
We want some background on why the term ''clean neighbourhoods'' features so strategically and prominently in the title, as it did throughout the consultation process. I represent a more deeply rural area. One hesitates to mention the hunt, but in case that is an indication of how rural an area is, I point out that the Vale of York enjoys nine separate hunts on its terrain. As I mentioned, we have neighbourhood watches. We also have a network of farm watches with which the police and other antisocial behaviour partners try to tackle antisocial behaviour. Farmers and landowners will, we believe, remain victims of many of the practices that the Bill seeks to address.

Paddy Tipping: Does the hon. Lady share my recollection that both the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association support the Bill?

Anne McIntosh: They support parts of the Bill, but they have written extensively to us to express their real concerns about other parts of it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has received a briefing, although perhaps not with quite so much detail as our one, that will guide him on that. Given his background and concern for the countryside, I am sure that he will share my hesitation in condoning something as limited as clean neighbourhoods, in recognition of the fact that, in many parts of my constituency, it is impossible to point to a neighbourhood as such, because there is only one house or hamlet. I welcome his comments.
I hope that the Minister will understand why we would have preferred greater recognition of the particular problems of antisocial behaviour in the countryside. We fear that those problems will be compounded by provisions coming through in other Bills, such as those allowing later licensing for drinks. We are reliably informed that the local police are concerned that antisocial behaviour may move later into the night in market towns and that, therefore, when antisocial behaviour occurs in the middle of the night in deeply rural areas that will not be classified as neighbourhoods, the police will be unable to visit and detain.

Alun Michael: When I first saw the amendment, I thought with some delight that the Conservative party had finally woken up and was trying to recognise the Government slogan ''cleaner, safer, greener'', with which we want to create a decent environment for everybody in every part of the country. It is a pity that the hon. Lady left greener out, or she would have been trying to write the whole of our excellent, cross-departmental campaigning slogan into the title of the Bill. She might then have had problems with the House authorities, because the short title of a Bill must meet certain requirements. It does not reflect the contents of a Bill as a whole but must give an accurate indication of what the Bill is about. The long title is the description of the contents of a Bill as a whole.
However, the amendment was not about that. It was an attempt by the hon. Member for Vale of York to redeem herself for the crass mistake that was made in the reasoned amendment on Second Reading, when the Conservative party appeared not to understand that the provisions of the Bill apply to rural communities and have been considered by the Government in regard to rural communities as much as to urban communities. She would have been better off simply apologising to those who live in rural areas. Despite the fact that she represents a very rural constituency, she does not seem to know this, so perhaps I ought to break it to her that rural areas do have neighbourhoods. There are many small towns with neighbourhoods in them. There are about 8,700 villages in England. If one takes into account the community council areas in Wales, the number  increases to about 10,000. Some of them cover more than one neighbourhood, so the numbers in rural areas are considerable. 
The hon. Member for Vale of York should accept that this Government have recognised the needs of rural people consistently, carefully and in partnership with them in recent years. The rural White Paper in 2000 set out a programme for partnership with rural communities. A tremendous amount of work has also been done since the establishment of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. During the foot and mouth outbreak, for example, we enabled rural communities to recover from the impact of the disease, which affected not only farmers but, in many cases, the whole community. In the light of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July, we are transforming the landscape of support: we are devolving responsibility for finance to the regional development agencies, and integrating the way in which we approach the needs of the countryside such as biodiversity, the landscape and access. 
In that context, there is every indication of a vibrant rural economy, and of satisfaction with services that is very often greater than satisfaction with services provided in urban communities, which shows the effectiveness of the 180 Labour MPs who represent rural and semi-rural constituencies. 
The hon. Lady referred in passing to farm watch, which is an approach that I promoted as a Home Office Minister but is not relevant to the Bill. The neighbourhood watch approach and more specialised approaches such as farm watch are particularly appropriate in rural areas. The Bill sets out a partnership approach between the local authority and the police, which includes within its ambit the way in which we deal with problems in local neighbourhoods, such as graffiti, fly-tipping, fly-posting and litter, and will be an effective measure for ensuring that we make progress on providing cleaner and safer neighbourhoods. 
The hon. Lady's preferred title of the environment Bill, if it had passed the requirements of the House, would have been too wide and too general. People might have expected the Bill to deal with issues that fall way outside the ambit of its long title. They might have asked why it did not deal, for example, with global warming. The answer is that we believe that the priority should be to reflect what we hear from our constituents. Indeed, that was what was reflected in the 18 speeches by Labour Back Benchers on Second Reading, but not in the two rather pathetic speeches that were made from the Conservative Back Benches. In fairness, I should say that the Liberal Democrats scored nil in the number of speeches that they made from their Back Benches. 
As I said, we reflected the concerns that affect people's everyday lives in their neighbourhoods and communities. That is why the Bill's short title is the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. It does, of course, include other items to which the long title refers. I do not believe that there has ever been a short title that completely reflected all the contents, unless it  was a very short Bill. Certainly most complex Bills have a short title that is not perfect but which gives some indication of what the Bill is about. This Bill is about creating clean neighbourhoods. When I described clause 1, I said that achieving a clean neighbourhood contributes to creating a safer one. I have passionately believed that for many years, and I am delighted that the Government have supported the measures in the Bill to enable that comprehensive approach to the problems of local communities. 
I reject the hon. Lady's amendment. I am flattered that she has chosen an approach outlined by the Government so that she could select a couple of words for the amendment, but the title that we have given the Bill is appropriate, and it should stand.

Anne McIntosh: I hope that the Minister is not too flattered. It was rather by default that I was not able to use the wording that I wished.
I wish to tease out one more point from the Minister. He may recall the law of unintended consequences in relation to the first Bill I scrutinised as a Back Bencher, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The provisions that were drafted on common land, about which I have had informal discussions with the Minister, have led to enormous good news for the landowner, but bad news for people who thought that they could legally park their cars on common land. Those people now face a substantial bill from landowners, who had not realised that the provision existed to allow them to charge for access to their land. 
Since the last election, the farming community in the Vale of York has been decimated. The Government have presided over its greatest demise, in the sense that foot and mouth disease came late to the Vale of York, after the general election, leading to substantial hardship. A number of farmers are now going out of animal production. The Minister will not get the surprise or the welcome he expects. He thinks he will go to the country in the general election on a platform of championing the countryside. His party has presided over the greatest collapse in farm incomes.

Sue Doughty: On a point of order, Mr. Forth. Are we listening to an election speech? There are a lot of clauses to get through and a considerable amount of time seems to have been wasted. Many of us want to deal with important clauses, yet it would appear that the time of the Committee is being taken up by election speeches.

Eric Forth: I appreciate the assistance that the hon. Lady seeks to give. I am keeping a close eye on what is being said on both sides, and I now expect the hon. Member for Vale of York to conclude her remarks.

Anne McIntosh: I was simply responding to the rather fulsome remarks made by the Minister. I draw his attention to the fact that the charge against him in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading was that the Bill and the whole consultation—in so far as there was a full consultation, with which I further take  issue—focused predominantly on urban issues while neglecting rural areas. That is a theme to which we shall have ample opportunity to return.
I hear what the Minister says about neighbourhoods, and it was not our intention to have a lengthy debate on what constitutes a neighbourhood. I pay tribute to the work of farm watches and of farmers in general in combating antisocial behaviour throughout the country. The amendment was intended as a probing one, and nothing more than that. I heard what was said with great interest, as will many in the farming community and rural areas throughout the country. It is not my intention to press the matter to a vote and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Illegal deposit or disposal of waste (power of arrest)

'(1) In subsection 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.69), at the end insert— 
''(w) an offence under subsection 33(4A) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.3).'' 
 (2) In section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.3), after subsection (4) insert— 
 ''(4A) A person authorised by the Environmental Protection Agency to exercise the powers specified in section 108(4) of the Environment Act 1995 (c.25) shall have like powers to those of a constable to arrest any person depositing or disposing of waste in contravention of subsection (1).'.'.—[Miss McIntosh] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is perhaps one of the clauses to which the hon. Member for Guildford referred in her remarks a moment ago. If the Government are serious about many of the provisions in the Bill, they must include the power of citizen's arrest by officials from local authorities, particularly the Environment Agency. We saw in earlier provisions that there will be a power to seize a vehicle that is used to perpetrate offences under the Bill, such as the dumping of waste or of large deposits. We want to take that one stage further. Although it is deemed appropriate to take the vehicle off the road and seize it so that that vehicle cannot be used to perpetrate such offences in the future, that would be a very hollow means of dealing with this particularly regrettable and growing form of environmental crime. We know that it is growing: we have the end-of-life directive, there is the fact that hazardous and non-hazardous waste cannot now be co-disposed, and we know that, as of today, there are insufficient sites licensed to take hazardous waste. We have seen a growing mountain of fridges and fridge-freezers under the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive—or the WEEE directive, as it is abbreviated,. We have seen other white goods, such as  microwaves and television sets, increasingly being dumped—again, on privately owned land in country areas. 
We believe that it is simply insufficient to remove or seize the vehicle. We would like to empower environmental health officers from local authorities, or indeed environmental officers, to make a citizen's arrest in that regard. It would thus be an arrestable offence of fly-tipping. Without the provisions in our new clause 1, the Bill will simply not have any teeth. We believe that it is quite appropriate that a person authorised by the Environment Agency can exercise the powers, specified under the Environment Act 1995, that they 
''shall have like powers to those of a constable to arrest any person depositing or disposing of waste in contravention of subsection (1)''. 
I would also hope that that power would be available either if the person were caught in the act or perhaps caught on camera. If it could be shown physically that it was that person, that could be taken as proof. We believe it is the most positive contribution that the Bill could make and would give it real teeth. 
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on our new clause. We believe the present arrangements are unsatisfactory: I have had regular meetings with ENCAMS in my own region and with the Environment Agency. We have made representations and had positive and sympathetic replies from ENCAMS and the Environment Agency nationally. Our conclusion is that the provision is completely insufficient, as the Bill stands, to seize only the vehicle. The perpetrator or perpetrators of these environmental offences must be seized.

Alun Michael: Has the hon. Lady not spotted that the offences have already been made arrestable under the Bill?

Anne McIntosh: My understanding, although I hear what the Minister says, is that an officer of the Environment Agency or, indeed, an environmental health officer is not entitled to make the arrest. Therefore, the Minister is missing the point. We believe that it is those people—those who can be described as persons authorised under the Act in our new clause—who are being asked to apply the provisions of the Bill up and down the country. Therefore I ask the Minister to grasp our point: if we are asking environmental health officers—or, more appropriately, officers of the Environment Agency—to police the Bill, we must give them the powers. They must be able not only to seize the vehicle, but to arrest and apprehend the person who is fly-tipping. That is the only way to stop that very crude development in its tracks.

Sue Doughty: On the face of it, one might have quite a bit of sympathy with the new clause. We share concerns about increasing fly-tipping as a result of the end of co-disposal of hazardous waste and the impact of the various Acts. Although we do not disagree with the reasons behind these Acts, we have concerns about  the availability of places to take such waste. Earlier, we raised concerns that there is already insufficient funding going into the Environment Agency for detection of such crimes or for securing convictions.
We spoke to the Environment Agency to get its views about the clause, because on the face of it we had some sympathy with it. We asked the agency how it would feel about having the powers of arrest in those circumstances and it did not agree with the proposal. The crimes in question are serious, with a lot of money at stake, and not the sort of thing that a non-uniformed Environment Agency officer would want to walk in on. The agency told us that it would be more appropriate for uniformed police to deal with such serious criminals. On that basis, we cannot support the new clause.

Alun Michael: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford, which acted as a clear rebuttal of the new clause, which has been tabled without sensible thought as to the consequences.
The first part of the new clause seeks to make the offence of illegal waste disposal arrestable. That is unnecessary because it is already achieved elsewhere in the Bill. Clause 41 introduces a new maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to five years for illegal waste disposal, which will therefore become an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. 
The second part of the new clause seeks to give an Environment Agency officer the same powers of arrest for illegal waste disposal as those of a constable. I agree with the hon. Member for Guildford that it is neither appropriate nor necessary for the Environment Agency to be given such powers. I can confirm that the Environment Agency does not want its officers to have that power. The agency has natural concerns over the personal safety of its officers, who are not trained or equipped to arrest people, especially those who might resist an arrest, and it does not have any facilities to detain those who are arrested. Those are important practical considerations that militate against the proposal. 
Even worse is the opportunism behind the new clause, which totally contradicts the remarks that the hon. Member for Vale of York has made in this Committee. When we discussed crime reduction partnerships, she said that 
''residual authority should remain with the police. I would prefer them to be uniformed police. The Minister must accept that, although a large number of community support officers have been appointed, they do not have the same qualifications, training and powers of arrest as fully qualified and licensed police officers.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 18 January 2004; c. 11.] 
Well, on this occasion I agree with what the hon. Lady said then, although I do not agree that it was appropriate to the clause that she was addressing at the time. 
Does the hon. Lady not understand the mass of inconsistencies in what she is saying? Her remarks are certainly true when applied to Environment Agency officers, although not in relation to minor offences, but to serious ones. It is even more important that we ensure that the most appropriate body has powers of arrest for fly-tipping, which in this case is the police, who are fully trained in arrest and dealing with any potential complications. We know the complications that can arise, very often in rural areas—we are talking about an urban and rural issue—when circumstances are identified and there is a need to nip things in the bud. 
The Environment Agency and local authorities can request police assistance at any time—in my experience they work well in action—and, in the vast majority of cases, they have no difficulties in receiving police support when it is needed. I hope very much that the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause. 
Debate adjourned.—[Peter Bradley.] 
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.